D&D 5E Are you happy with the Battlemaster and Fighter Maneuvers? Other discussions as well.

[Chaltab]

None of what? The maneuver stuff?

None of the stuff you listed as Pre-4E decision points. Movement used to be measured in inches, not 5' squares. Opportunity Attacks were only made core in 3rd Edition. There weren't even Feats and Skills prior to 3rd Edition.

And no, tactical combat was not really a thing before 3rd, at least not what we're talking of. Tactics more involved tiering your minions and hirelings into the best possible formation and managing the logistics of dungeoneering without dying horribly or running out of resources. So while yeah, the Fighter's own personal actions in combat were similarly limited before 4th Edition, they were both Better At It in previous editions, and more fundamentally, the game was Very Different. Through 2E and into 3E the fundamental assumptions of AD&D changed drastically from OD&D and Gary Gygax's 1E. And this is ignoring the parallel but quite different evolution of the Basic line, where Fighters could learn special techniques based on their choice of weapons.

So yeah, changing magic to skill roles? Is a HUGE departure, and much, much more drastic a change than Fighters having techniques. Again, at some point you have to decide if you really want to play D&D at all; it's never been a game with Skill rolls at the core, but there are plenty of systems that are. Why not use one of those?

 

[Ahnehnois]

None of the stuff you listed as Pre-4E decision points. Movement used to be measured in inches, not 5' squares.

Not important. There was grid-based movement regardless.

Opportunity Attacks were only made core in 3rd Edition.

True, but again not really central to what I was saying.

There weren't even Feats and Skills prior to 3rd Edition.

Irrelevant. I wasn't discussing them. (Also, there were NWPs and there were some skills, but that's beside the point).

So yeah, changing magic to skill roles? Is a HUGE departure

True

and much, much more drastic a change than Fighters having techniques.

Not so much.

Again, at some point you have to decide if you really want to play D&D at all; it's never been a game with Skill rolls at the core, but there are plenty of systems that are. Why not use one of those?

I'm not sure how you define skill system, but that isn't really what I'm getting at anyway. My point is that the d20 paradigm is central to D&D; the idea of target numbers and bonuses, of using the d20 as a way to determine success and failure, the idea of the DM adjudicating what all of this means and when and how to be used, that very much is at the heart of D&D.

There didn't used to be as many defined d20 checks and they didn't used to advance as skills (saves and attacks advanced by class, while many other checks had no level-based advancement at all). But it was there. There were also various things that worked off of other dice than the d20 or advanced in different ways (thief skills for example); which were standardized in the conversion to the d20 system. Surely no one would argue that rolling a d20 is not archetypical behavior of someone playing D&D?

The way magic works is the exception. And that's also always been part of the picture. Magic happens without a roll. In some cases, the defender rolls a save. There are resources that run out. Spell list selection and memorization have tremendous differential effects on what the character can do. Capacities expand greatly with level. All of these things and more are true of magic, but not of anything else.

The idea that WotC keeps pushing is that we should take the magical paradigm (the exception to how stuff works) and apply it to everything else ("exception-based design"). That's quite a radical shift. I'd say even more radical than taking that spellcaster and making him pick up a d20 like everyone else. It has a lot of problematic implications. I'm not in favor of it.

 

[Chaltab]

I'm not sure how you define skill system, but that isn't really what I'm getting at anyway. My point is that the d20 paradigm is central to D&D; the idea of target numbers and bonuses, of using the d20 as a way to determine success and failure, the idea of the DM adjudicating what all of this means and when and how to be used, that very much is at the heart of D&D.

It's at the heart of D&D now, yes. This was not always the case.

There didn't used to be as many defined d20 checks and they didn't used to advance as skills (saves and attacks advanced by class, while many other checks had no level-based advancement at all). But it was there. There were also various things that worked off of other dice than the d20 or advanced in different ways (thief skills for example); which were standardized in the conversion to the d20 system. Surely no one would argue that rolling a d20 is not archetypical behavior of someone playing D&D?

You're not wrong about this.

The way magic works is the exception. And that's also always been part of the picture. Magic happens without a roll. In some cases, the defender rolls a save. There are resources that run out. Spell list selection and memorization have tremendous differential effects on what the character can do. Capacities expand greatly with level. All of these things and more are true of magic, but not of anything else.

You're oversimplifying things. Nothing one individual character within the fiction could do was ever as intricate as the spell system, but again, Fighters and other classes had other resources than "I hit it with my sword."

The d20 system collapsed a lot of mechanical cruft into a unified mechanic, but every class still has class features. There are things that you can only get with twenty levels of a given class, even if that's simply the extra Feats the Fighter gets. 3.X also made spell aquisition much easier, which drastically broke the power curve between casters and fighter.

You're right when you say that the 'magic is different than everything else' paradigm leads to lopsided game design, but...

The idea that WotC keeps pushing is that we should take the magical paradigm (the exception to how stuff works) and apply it to everything else ("exception-based design"). That's quite a radical shift. I'd say even more radical than taking that spellcaster and making him pick up a d20 like everyone else. It has a lot of problematic implications. I'm not in favor of it.

I don't see how you're measuring the radicalness of these alternatives. If anything they're equally drastic changes, and I'd argue there's far more precedent for exception-based-design all around the board than their is for the reverse.

But even accepting your calculus, what I don't get is this: You want a game without classes and niche protection. You want a unified core mechanic that's the same for everyone. There have been games with these things for decades--but D&D only came close to this with 3E and backed away from the lack of niche protection with 4E.

But 4E did unify the mechanics--everyone rolls Attack vs Defense instead of a defensive saving throw to mitigate a spell effect. A lot of people *did not like this* though I'm not one of them. Clearly more than a few players want physical attacking and spellcasting to have a different mechanical representation. To think that something even more divorced from the history of D&D like free-form magic as opposed to distinct spells would go over just doesn't bear up.

So the question remains: why not play something that does what you want it to? If 4E was rejected by a large portion of the D&D community, what hope could D&D Next have if you take it further (or just as far, from your perspective) in the opposite direction?

 

[Ahnehnois]

But even accepting your calculus, what I don't get is this: You want a game without classes and niche protection. You want a unified core mechanic that's the same for everyone.

Okay, yes, pretty much.

So the question remains: why not play something that does what you want it to?

I do. It's 3e, or as I call it "D&D". I was just hoping for a new version to come out someday that has a similar philosophy but incorporates some of what we've learned over the past fifteen years. Absent that, some version of 3e will have to remain as "the" D&D for myself and everyone else who liked it.

I don't see how you're measuring the radicalness of these alternatives. If anything they're equally drastic changes, and I'd argue there's far more precedent for exception-based-design all around the board than their is for the reverse.

Not really. The idea from the start was that attacks work the same way for everyone. There's nothing stopping a wizard/mage from rolling an attack, and it's resolved the same way as it would be for anyone else. The career magician simply sucks at it.

Which is a very important thing. The rules for attacks represent a set of laws of game world physics and behavior that exist independent of any character. A (non-4e) fighter does not have a "power source", he is simply better/faster/stronger than your average commoner at doing what he does. There is no equivalence to be drawn with spells. This is what D&D did right.

If 4E was rejected by a large portion of the D&D community, what hope could D&D Next have if you take it further (or just as far, from your perspective) in the opposite direction?

The problem with looking at it that way is that 4e has so many radical paradigm shifts (often contradictory and to no discernible end) that it can hardly be considered a test case for any one mechanical element. On top of that, everything's so poorly implemented that it's not a fair test of anything. And then there's all the extracurricular stuff that doesn't pertain to the rules themselves, the licensing, the company's behavior, the fans' behavior. There just really isn't much positive to be gleaned from discussing it other than in the sense of those not learning from history being doomed to repeat it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

When 2e started to drift, it really lost itself, IMO. The game engine was an imperfect fit at best for the sorts of 90's things that were being hung off it.

To me, that's not a good thing. I'm not playing D&D for a generic fantasy game; I'm playing D&D to do all the stuff D&D should be best at - the dragons and the dungeons.

I think the drift was first promenant in the days of Dragonlance when they literally had to include an "Obscure Death Rule" to prevent the random kills the rules would lead to. 2e drifted down this path that the rules were never intended for and didn't fit - because they were producing interesting material that people enjoyed.

The basic comparison here is that the BM is roughly equal to a Cleric who gets nothing but 1st level spells that never scale. A waste of ink and paper.

The concept might be salvageable if the BM ends up with double digit superiority dice per short rest, the ability to spend multiple per round AND enhanced effects by spending more die on a maneuver.

QFT. The Battlemaster is like offering someone used to driving a Ferrari a Yugo on the grounds that at least it's a car.

That's really weird considering just last night I ran the first part of Zeitgeist Episode 2, and the closest thing to a "fight" was our fighter tossing an annoying scholar out a bar window.

Everyone participated just fine, which is a big part of "balance". While it'd be good if every class had 4 trained skills at a minimum, part of 4e's balance is a sort of bounded accuracy when it comes to skill checks and DCs. Even the uncharismatic PCs could work the crowd, for example.

This is what I'd expect. 4e's out of combat balance isn't as good as its in combat balance. But it does bounded accuracy (and probably does it better than Next) which means that everyone can contribute effectively.

 

[Manbearcat]

That's really weird considering just last night I ran the first part of Zeitgeist Episode 2, and the closest thing to a "fight" was our fighter tossing an annoying scholar out a bar window.

Everyone participated just fine, which is a big part of "balance". While it'd be good if every class had 4 trained skills at a minimum, part of 4e's balance is a sort of bounded accuracy when it comes to skill checks and DCs. Even the uncharismatic PCs could work the crowd, for example.

+ 1. My home game features about 60 % of its conflict resolution, and table time, as noncombat. Its more functional, by far, than all of the noncombat resolution in the preceding editions and, as such, it sees far more play at my table than in preceding editions. Also, I ran a PBP for folks on here at the end of last year. That PBP featured 2 legitimate invocations of the combat mechanics to resolve conflict. Meanwhile, the majority of the game featured noncombat conflict resolution. Finally, I'm running a PBP currently on here for my S.O. We haven't moved very far due to real life requirements, but thus far the game has seen one invocation of the combat mechanics and the ratio of play, and conflicts, is vastly in favor of noncombat.

Its amusing how many 4e testimonials there are just like that but they are roundly ignored by people who don't play 4e, such that they can continue unimpeded with the "4E IS ALL ABOUT THE COMBATZ POWERZ" and "...miniatures skirmish game linked by freeform roleplay" memes.

 

[Li Shenron]

When I specifically think of Dungeons and Dragons, fighter maneuvers certainly don't cross my mind.

You're not wrong to say that skill-based magic would be a large departure, but certainly no larger than the one we're discussing. In D&D, fighters say "I attack" and roll a d20, and spellcasters of various types select from a menu of limited-use spells. The direction WotC is pushing is to make everyone more like the latter. I'm suggesting making everyone more like the former. If not that, at least leave the poor fighter be.

Why does it feel to you that WotC is pushing everyone towards that?

There are still going to be other Fighter subclasses beside the Battlemaster, and very likely none of them (in core at least*) will have Superiority Dice and use Maneuvers.

There may or may not be other Fighter subclasses using Maneuvers later on*, but the feeling is that for supplements they would design more Maneuvers rather than subclasses using Maneuvers, so that there is maximum flexibility within the Battlemaster subclass (e.g. for those who want strictly technical maneuvers vs others who want to create a Warlord-type Fighter vs something else).

Instead, there will be other subclasses (besides the known Warrior and Eldritch Knight) to capture different narrative archetypes of probably mid-complexity: Samurai, Cavalier/Knight, Swashbuckler, Bladesinger, Crusader/Templar, Dervish...

*truth is, there is no need for another Fighter subclass using SD and maneuvers, if the Battlemaster stays like it is in the last playtest packet

 

[Ahnehnois]

Why does it feel to you that WotC is pushing everyone towards that?

There are still going to be other Fighter subclasses beside the Battlemaster, and very likely none of them (in core at least*) will have Superiority Dice and use Maneuvers.

A fair question. For one thing, several people in this thread expressed concerns that the two won't be comparable and that one will effectively obsolete the other.

However, I think the bigger issue is that it's screwing the DM. Say you're a DM who wants longer-lasting injuries, so you implement a vp/wp system. It has some drawbacks, but you're willing to live with them. If you don't like them, you can always go back. What you don't do is have a PC class that can select an alternative health system to represent how tough the character is. The same is true of maneuvers, they're system rules, not character rules.

It's inappropriate for this type of modularity to be accessible by the players, and represents a potential headache for the DMs who don't want to deal with it. It also fails to address the issue of how system rules like manuevers interact with all the other non-fighter characters. On top of that, it's a shift towards emphasizing character builds rather than in-game choices, which is a step away from the minimalist old school approach that was being discussed when this chain of posts started.

 

[LostSoul]

There are decision points. Simply using your movement and choosing which targets to attack can create a fairly sophisticated set of decisions (even moreso with AoOs added to the mix).

In 1E, I don't think you can select which target to attack.

Who Attacks Whom:

As with missile fire, it is generally not possible to select a specific opponent in a mass melee. If this is the case, simply use some random number generation to find out which attacks are upon which opponents, remembering that only a certain number of attacks can usually be made upon one opponent. If characters or similar intelligent creatures are able to single out an opponent or opponents, then the concerned figures will remain locked in melee until one side is dead or opts to attempt to break off the combat. If there are unengaged opponents, they will move to melee the unengaged enemy. If the now-unengaged figures desire to assist others of their party, they will have to proceed to the area in which their fellows are engaged, using the movement rates already expressed.

AD&D DMG Revised edition pp 70​

When we played we set up ranks in Wizardy-like fashion and had them hammer at each other. Pool of Radiance and miniatures/Lego mini-figs changed our behaviour so that we started picking targets - but we may have been playing 2E by that point.

 

[Chaltab]

Which is a very important thing. The rules for attacks represent a set of laws of game world physics and behavior that exist independent of any character. A (non-4e) fighter does not have a "power source", he is simply better/faster/stronger than your average commoner at doing what he does. There is no equivalence to be drawn with spells. This is what D&D did right.

I'm really not sure what you're getting at here. That's what the Martial power source means--being better, faster, and stronger without the aid of Arcane, Divine, Psionic, Shadow, or Primal magic. Being good through the practice of Martial Arts. There's no effort to model physics involved in the attack mechanics. There have been physics effects on spells, such as Fireball blasts conforming to the terrain where they detonate. But that basically requires either intricate spells or the DM to make rulings on the fly.

The problem with looking at it that way is that 4e has so many radical paradigm shifts (often contradictory and to no discernible end) that it can hardly be considered a test case for any one mechanical element.

Again, you keep coming back to this, but 1) the changes to multiclassing in 3rd were an equally radical paradigm shift that, in my mind, contradicts the core assumptions of what D&D was about, and 2) Contradictory and to no discernible end? What does that even mean? I can't think of a single rule change in 4E that doesn't further the design goals. I can think of some rules that weren't changed that would have streamlined the design goals.

On top of that, everything's so poorly implemented that it's not a fair test of anything.

There are some poorly implemented elements in 4E (Feat Taxes, Skill Challenges) but by and large the core game is extremely well designed. It's not to your taste, and a large chunk of the fanbase agrees, but if anything it's a great test run for a lot of ideas that have made their way into Next and 13th Age.

And then there's all the extracurricular stuff that doesn't pertain to the rules themselves, the licensing, the company's behavior, the fans' behavior. There just really isn't much positive to be gleaned from discussing it other than in the sense of those not learning from history being doomed to repeat it.

Other than the solid math, the understanding of what it wants to be instead of trying to be everything, the excellent niche protection, the unified mechanical system, the vastly improved skill list, the first edition to totally fix Caster Supremacy, need I go on?

I'm not even sure what my point is anymore... The Battlemaster. Yes, that. Imperfect, but a step in the right direction.